April 30, 2014
Perry-Casteñeda Library, University of Texas at Austin
Kristi welcomed attendees and gave some information about logistics for the meeting
David explained the mission and organization of the Vireo Users Group (VUG). The VUG Steering Committee comprises Stephanie Larrison (co-chair and Product Owner), David Reynolds (co-chair), Joy Perrin, Laura Spradlin, and Ryan Steans.
Stephanie started out a round of introductions of attendees. Each representative was asked to give his or her name, institution, role, and institutional profile highlights about their ETD program and use of Vireo. Following are some of the highlights.
Texas State University—Stephanie Larrison
Baylor—Billie Peterson Lugo (glue between grad school, cataloging dept., etc.)
Angelo State University—Susan Elkins
Tex. A&M – Laura Hammons; Gail Clement
ETD since 2002; Vireo in 2008, one of the first schools to use it
host their own instance
not many customizations; created new status called “archived”
accept theses and record of study
undergrad office has separate instance of Vireo; students submit chapters in stages—unique way of using Vireo
1000s of items in Vireo; about 450 per semester
UT Austin—Ann Marchock manages cataloging of theses and Colleen Lyon (repository manager), Renee Babcock in Grad School
Vireo in spring 2009
Dissertations, theses, masters reports
about 850 in spring and 450 in fall and summer (1700 per year)
catalog theses and submit to UT repository
Johns Hopkins—David Reynolds
Vireo in September 2013
Dissertations, theses, capstones
about 500 submissions per year—mostly dissertations
allows embargoes of up to 4 years
TAMU International—Tim Bogue
Micah Cooper (Texas A&M), Michael Bolton (Texas A&M), Gad Krumholz (TDL)
Marlene Coles—ProQuest ETD evangelist
Who is missing
Harvard, MIT, Ga. Tech, Illinois-UC, East Carolina is trying, Arkansas
UNT is evaluating
Inquiries from Canada
Another meeting at USETDA in Orlando to reach out to non-Texas schools
Vireo ProQuest documentation
ETD Metadata Working Group–Sarah Potvin (Texas A&M)
TDL-sponsored Software Development
Looking to reconcile the Vireo code trunk with branches that are developing on various campuses
Look at integrating fixes that have been submitted to Github
Try to upgrade the Java Play framework to the current version—at least look at the effect—don’t break the code
not sure whether this upgrade will include new features or will just update the “scaffolding”
you might not have to change Vireo or you might just change your Play instance
Forming Vireo Technical Developers Group
will be a page where users can submit change requests
will develop project charter
trying to recruit developers from around the country; try to get this nailed down in next 30 days
Enhancement Voting Process and Timeline–Stephanie Larrison
June 1 will be the deadline for new enhancement requests
actual development sprint will not happen until August (VUG voting process needs to be done by end of July)
feature and issue requests go to https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/SCZ2WXR
“Sizing”: the development group gets together and makes an estimate of how difficult an individual enhancement might be. They talk about what each of the scores mean. If VUG has put a lot of high-value things at the top, the Steering Committee may need to re-prioritize the items
Prioritization will be done by a combination of popularity and size
Customizations Outside the Master Branch
When someone makes a change in their branch, they can put it on Github as a “pull request” that is asking the change to be pulled into main branch
Developers Group will review all six current pull requests and report back to VUG. They will pull these into a test version that people can dry.
Steering Committee will evaluate the feedback given by users after the trial period to decide whether it needs more discussion or to just accept as done.
True bug fixes will not be voted on by VUG, but they will keep us informed.
people want to vote on individual changes, not on a whole package
If a pull request is voted down by VUG, it can still go on the enhancement list
Feature Requests for Next Ballot
Should we start with existing list or start over? some found the existing list daunting because it is so big. We might ask everyone for top 3 needs: you can choose from the list or add new ones
How can we weight the voting process? rank them all? give voters a number of poker chips?
Possibly use Jira to track and categorize requests? probably too expensive
do we need more detail on the requests? Steering Committee will ask for examples if things aren’t clear
DECISION: we will start over. use the URL above to submit new requests. Requires some institutional information.
DECISION: each institution can put in 6 enhancement requests—the institution gets to decide how to divide these up. This only for formulating the ballot. May have a different way to prioritize things once we get the ballot.